Rabbi Tzvi Pesach Frank (1873-1960) is best known as the chief Ashkenazi Rabbi of Jerusalem. He was born and raised in Lithuania, where he studied at Slobodka and Telz, two of Europe’s most prominent yeshivot before the war. After making aliyah in 1892, he became a part of the rabbinic establishment of the old yishuv, while also building a close connection with Rav Kook, becoming part of his circle of intimates along with Rabbi Tzvi Yehudah Kook, Rabbi Yaakov Moshe Charlap, and the Nazir, Rabbi David Cohen. He was instrumental in Rav Kook’s appointment after World War I as the chief rabbi of Jerusalem, a position he himself would later occupy, as well as in the development of the new Chief Rabbinate. He is also the author of numerous books in all areas of Torah, including his responsa Har Tzvi, which are considered authoritative by a large portion of orthodox spectrum .
In this teshuva, Rav Frank is asked about the kashrut of a lulav that comes from a Canary Island date palm (Phoenix canariensis), whose dates are inferior to the true date palm (Phoenix dactylifera). In investigating this problem, Rav Frank comes upon a statement in the Chatam Sofer (Moshe Sofer, Hungary, 1762–1839) explaining the position of the Rosh (Asher ben Yehiel, Germany and Spain, 1250 or 1259 – 1327) that if one planted a date palm with the intention of using it as a hedge or for lumber or firewood, any lulav that might come off of that tree would not be kosher for the mitzvah of lulav on Sukkot.
The essence of the Chatam Sofer’s claim is that the identity of a tree, as a fruit tree or not, is contingent on whether the owner of the tree planted it for its fruit or for some other purpose. Rav Frank rejects this claim and argues that the identity of the tree as a fruit tree is unchanging regardless of human intentions for it. It is not humans who determine the identity of the tree through their use of it, he implies, but God, who created the tree. .
The waiving of the lulav, in addition to other things, is a prayer for blessing and fertility in the coming year (Yerushalmi, Sukkah 1:1 (63c), Bavli Sukkah 37b). We frequently assume that we can somehow control the successes and failures of the year ahead, however this is an illusion. Rav Frank’s understanding of the identity of the lulav can remind us how small our intentions and machinations in comparison to God’s plan. This year more than ever, we have realized how little control we have over the world. Our lulavim, whose identity is defined by God, not by human beings, remind us that our efforts alone cannot guarantee a fruitful and blessed year. Ultimately, that is in the hands of God, and in taking up the lulav we acknowledge our limitations and pray for God’s support in the year ahead.
| שו”ת הר צבי אורח חיים ב סימן קח
… אבל ראיתי להחת”ס בחידושיו על סוכה (דף לה ד”ה ללמדך)… דכמו דאמרו בירושלמי בטעמא דהנוטע אתרוג למצוה חייב בערלה משום דלמצוה צריך פרי דוקא, ונמצא דהנטיעה היתה לשם פרי, כן אותו הטעם שייך גם בלולב דהא כתיב כפת תמרים, ואם משמש תמרים מעשה עץ אינו יוצא בלולב שבו דשוב אינו כפות תמרים, ע”כ. מבואר מתוך דברי החת”ס דיש קפידא שהלולב יהיה מאילן מגדל פירות דוקא ואם היה חושב עליו שיהיה לעצים לא היה יוצא גם בהלולב שבו… ואף דהניח ליסוד קיים דתנאי יש בהכשרו של לולב שיהא גדל באילן נושא פירות תמרים, לכאורה אין המחשבה לעצים מפקיעה תורת פרי מהתמרים… לענין ברכה ודאי דפרי הם ומברכין עליהם בורא פרי העץ, ולא גריעי הני תמרים מהא דמבואר בשו”ע (סימן רג סעיף ד) על פירות שמוציאין אילני סרק שהכל… וכתבו המג”א והט”ז (ס”ק ב) אבל דבר שטוב לאכילה כמו אותן שכתבתי לעיל פרי גמור הן ואע”פ שגדלין על אילני סרק, עכ”ל המג”א. ולכאורה מכש”כ הני פירות הגדלין באילן הנטוע לסייג ולעצים דמברכין עלייהו בורא פרי העץ וכן נהוג בפעיה”ק בפרי הצבר הגדל על נטיעות הנטועים לסייג שנוהגים כהוראת הגאון מבריסק לברך עליהם בופה”ע… ומה”ט נראה לי דבנוטע דקל לסייג ולעצים לולב שבו כשר למצוה דשפיר נקרא כפת תמרים דהא אם יקח הני תמרים לאכילה מברך בופה”ע אף אם חשב עליהם לעצים… אלא תנאי הוא בלולב שיהא גדל באילן הנושא פירות, וא”כ אף שהנטיעה היא שלא לשם הפירות, מחשבה זו אינה פוגעת בתנאי דמצות לולב שיהא גדל באילן נושא פירות, דגם בנוטע לסייג… מ”מ הלולב כשר דסוף סוף הרי יש בו פירות שמברכין עליהם בופה”ע אם יאכלם… ובלא”ה גם אם היה הדין דמחשבה לעצים מבטלת הפרי מתורת אוכל, ג”כ היה מקום לדון דאין הלולב פסול בשביל כך אפילו אם היה הדין מוחלט דבעינן שיגדל באילן נושא פירות, דהגע עצמך דאם תולש הפירות כשהן סמדר לדידן דקי”ל דסמדר אינו פרי ומכש”כ אם נתלש קודם שהגיע לסמדר האם יש לצדד דהלולב פסול, הא בודאי זה כפת תמרים דהא אילן זה מגדל תמרים אלא שנתלשו קודם זמנן, א”כ מה שנתבטלו מתורת פרי ע”י מחשבת עצים לא גרע מאם תלשן לגמרי, ולא תהא עקירה במחשבה גדולה מעקירה שבידים ממש, שהרי בכל רגע בידו לתלוש ולאוכלו בברכת פרי העץ וכיצד נאמר שאין זה בכלל כפת תמרים בזמן שיש בו תמרים, ודינן כתמרים לברך בופה”ע. | However, I saw in the Chatam Sofer… that just as it says in the Talmud Yerushalmi that the reason one who plants an etrog tree for the mitzvah must wait three years before getting benefit from the fruit (because of the prohibition of orlah) is because r the mitzvah (of etrog) requires the fruit of the tree. And therefore, planting the tree was for the purpose of getting fruit. Similarly, the same reason holds true by the lulav because it says “branches of date palms” and if the date palm exists for the purpose of providing wood, one cannot fulfill their obligation with a lulav from it, because it is not a date palm. We understand from the words of the Chatam Sofer that there is a requirement that the lulav must be from a fruit tree specifically. And if one was to plant the tree intending only to use its wood, one would not fulfill their obligation using a lulav from it… And even though he assumes that a fundamental condition of the kashrut of a lulav is that it grew on a tree that gives fruit, apparently, the intention of using the wood does not remove the identity of fruit from the dates…. Regarding the blessing recited before eating, it is certainly a fruit and the blessing you recite is “creator of the fruit of the tree.” And these dates are no worse than what is written explicitly in the Shulchan Arukh (O”H 203:4), “for the fruits of non-fruiting trees (we say the blessing) ‘that all came about by God’s word’” … And the Magen Avraham and the Taz wrote, “But things that are good to eat… are complete fruits even though they grow on non-fruiting trees.” And apparently all the more so for fruits that grow on a tree that is planted as a hedge or for wood that we should say the blessing “creator of the fruit of the tree” before eating their fruit. And this is the custom here in Jerusalem for the prickly pears that grow on plants that were planted for a hedge, our custom is… to say the blessing “creator of the fruit of the tree.” … And for this reason, it appears to me that one who plants a date palm for a hedge or for wood, the lulav that comes from it is kosher for the mitzvah, for it is still called “branches of a date palm.” For if one were to take those dates to eat, the blessing would be “creator of the fruit of the tree” even though their intention (in planting them) was for wood… Rather, it is a condition of the lulav that it must grow on a tree that bears fruit, and therefore, even if the planting was not for the purpose of (producing) fruit, this intention does not violate the condition that the mitzvah of lulav demands that it grow on a tree that bears fruit. In any case the lulav is kosher because at the end of the day, it has fruit that require the blessing “creator of the fruit of the tree” if one were to eat them… And even if the law was that one’s intention when planting the trees invalidates the fruit’s identity as food, we could still argue that the lulav is not invalid, even if it were certain that we require that it grow on a tree that bears fruit. For consider, if we were to tear off the fruits while they were still blossoms, based on the prevailing halakhic opinion that a blossom is not a fruit, and all the more so if it was removed before it became a blossom, is there any argument to say that the lulav is invalid? It is certainly “branches of a date palm” for this tree produces dates, only they were torn off before their time. Therefore, the case in which the tree’s identity as a fruit tree was altered by the intention of the one who planted it cannot be any worse than actually tearing fruit off completely. For the tearing in thought cannot be greater than actual tearing by hand. For (in the case of tearing in thought) at any moment one could pick the fruit and eat it with the blessing of “the fruit of the tree.” And how could we say that this is not “branches of a date palm” when there are actual dates on the tree which are treated like dates to the point of blessing “creator of the fruit of the tree”. |
All of the content in The Lindenbaum Center for Halakhic Studies is released with a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. It is open for reuse with the following attribution: "Authored by [name of author] from The Lindenbaum Center for Halakhic Studies at YCT.
Rabbi Haggai Resnikoff (YCT ’14) is a Rebbe and Director of Community Learning at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. After spending several years in Israel doing graduate coursework in Hebrew University's Talmud Department and learning in various batei midrash in Jerusalem, he then trained at YCT. Rabbi Haggai graduated from YCT in 2014, and joined the faculty immediately thereafter. Rabbi Resnikoff headed up the Torat Chovevei Community Learning Project for four years and, as an outgrowth of that, has spearheaded YCT's groundbreaking effort to raise the priority level of the climate crisis in the Orthodox and larger Jewish community.
Rabbi Zachary Truboff ('10) is the coordinator of the International Beit Din Institute, which seeks to educate rabbis about halakhic solutions to the agunah problem. His writings on contemporary Jewish thought and Zionism have appeared in the Lehrhaus, Arutz Sheva, Akdamot, and Zerufim. His first book, Torah Goes Forth From Zion: Essays on the Thought of Rav Kook and Rav Shagar, will appear in the coming year. Before making aliyah, he served for nearly a decade as the rabbi of Cedar Sinai Synagogue in Cleveland. Under his leadership the synagogue grew substantially and became known for its inclusive community and innovative programing. In 2015, he was chosen by the Cleveland Jewish News as one of the 18 Difference Makers, a select group honored for their contributions to Jewish communal life in Northeast Ohio. He has taught in a variety of adult education settings such as the Wexner Heritage Program, the Torat Tzion Kollel, and the Hartman Institute. . He received semikha from Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg and Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. He and wife, Jen, live in Jerusalem with the four children Nahum, Elihai, Shaiya, and Orya.
3700 Henry Hudson Parkway, 2nd Floor
Riverdale, NY 10463
Phone: (212) 666-0036
Fax: (212) 666-5633
Email: office@yctorah.org
Click here to sign up to receive updates from YCT straight to your inbox.
